Top House Democrats reject Rep. Jayapal's comments calling Israel a 'racist state'
Source: NPR
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, walked back comments over the weekend which sparked backlash among members of her own party, in which she referred to Israel as "a racist state."
Her controversial comments came as she addressed pro-Palestinian protesters who interrupted a Netroots Nation panel discussion in Chicago on Saturday.
"Can I say something as somebody who's been in the streets and participated in a lot of demonstrations?" Jayapal told the crowd. "I want you to know that we have been fighting to make it clear that Israel is a racist state, that the Palestinian people deserve self-determination and autonomy, that the dream of a two-state solution is slipping away from us — that it doesn't even feel possible."
The Washington Democrat sought to clarify her comments on Sunday, writing in a statement that she apologizes to "those who I have hurt with my words."
Read more: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/17/1188096678/jayapal-israel-racist-state-jeffries
Maybe she'll be a delegate for RFK Jr.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
madaboutharry
(42,025 posts)She should know better.
The Israeli people are as divided as we are here in America. There are people with power within the Israeli government that are racist. There are also people who are not and fight for equality every day. To call a country racist because of the policies of some who have political power is immature and reactive.
onetexan
(13,913 posts)
hlthe2b
(112,517 posts)Because I think about how I would react if a person from outside the US told me that the US is racist, I think I'd want to clarify if they meant SOME Americans were racist (and indeed some are), that US governmental policies have had racist implications historically (they have) and that there are some who would promote such policies today (there are) and I see her disturbing comments in a bit different context.
Has she had a history of anti-semitism or anti-semitic comments?
emulatorloo
(46,135 posts)"Can I say something as somebody who's been in the streets and participated in a lot of demonstrations?" Jayapal told the crowd. "I want you to know that we have been fighting to make it clear that Israel is a racist state, that the Palestinian people deserve self-determination and autonomy, that the dream of a two-state solution is slipping away from us — that it doesn't even feel possible."
The Washington Democrat sought to clarify her comments on Sunday, writing in a statement that she apologizes to "those who I have hurt with my words."
There’s a little tiny bit more in the full article at NPR. It is a quick read though.
hlthe2b
(112,517 posts)I'd like the context of her previous comments on the matter and whether she has a history of saying or implying Israeli people are racist--or conversely that the Likudist Netanyahu policies toward Palestinians (specifically) are.
Her comments were wrong and inexcusable in that setting--especially as a US Representative, but I'd like to know the history of her attitudes toward the people of Israel, Jews in general, and current versus former Israeli governmental policies.
LisaM
(29,461 posts)She does stuff like this every so often. Other doozies are the time she said her first primary opponent was anti -feminist for running against her (he was a very pro-environment liberal who is also gay, and who I voted for), and the time she sat with members of the squad at some Bernie event and laughed heartily with them while the crowd booed Hillary.
Her voting record is about perfect, but she's got this harsh side that crops up from time to time, where she seems to have blinders on, or else she's letting her true self show. I recall that she had to apologize for something else not too long ago, though I can't remember offhand what it was.
Cha
(316,297 posts)
womanofthehills
(10,678 posts)From 2019:
In an unprecedented chain of events, the Israeli government declared it would bar entry to representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, ahead of a planned visit to the West Bank. The move came just hours after Trump publicly urged Israel not to allow the two Democratic lawmakers into the country in a highly unusual effort to influence a foreign government against his political opponents.
Omar responded to Israel’s announcement by stating it was “an affront” for the country’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to acquiesce to pressure from Trump.
“Trump’s Muslim ban is what Israel is implementing, this time against two duly elected Members of Congress,” she said in a statement. “Denying entry into Israel not only limits our ability to learn from Israelis, but also the Palestinian territories.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/15/israels-decision-to-block-congresswomen-omar-and-tlaib-draws-widespread-criticism
Evolve Dammit
(21,399 posts)pretty damn rascist. 
Marius25
(3,213 posts)When the British Mandate existed, Western powers tried to split Palestine into the Jewish part where Jews were living and the Arab part where Arabs were living. Arabs said hell no, they're not living next to a Jewish state, even if they get their own, and declared war on all Jews. Jews won, and even despite how Jews were treated by Arabs, Jews asked Arabs to help rebuild and stay. The Arab League said again, hell no, and ordered all Arabs to flee Palestine to Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc.
Response to Marius25 (Reply #14)
Tetrachloride This message was self-deleted by its author.
Drum
(10,538 posts)
Tetrachloride
(9,303 posts)Not even DU has one
The best plan is going to be from an unlikely source.
Marius25
(3,213 posts)Hamas does not want Israel to exist and will never support it.
Tetrachloride
(9,303 posts)Coalitions are tenuous.
Of the 5 smartest people in the region that I am acquainted with and have political opinions, 2 are pessimistic, and the other 3 don’t talk about the issues.
I know of one American who has been outside of the Israeli safe areas in the publicized areas — also pessimistic
Tetrachloride
(9,303 posts)wonder who isn’t using the well known analytical techniques in the fields of maps, migration, de-escalation, regional round tables.
Grasswire2
(13,849 posts)a Jewish man.
Tetrachloride
(9,303 posts)history with them.
Tetrachloride
(9,303 posts)No investigation.
No prosecution.
Hundreds of millions of forgetting.
Dead people don’t vote.
Marius25
(3,213 posts)They've literally had the offer on the table about 20 times and have rejected every single plan. Do you know how many plans the Palestinians have proposed in the past 80 years? Zero.
Israel has tons of problems, but I'm so sick of people who know nothing about the history of that region or conflict making these stupid accusations.
AZLD4Candidate
(6,721 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)the apartheid policies? And when will Israel rid itself of Netanyahu, the bad penny responsible for much of the right wing extremism?
Many tough problems in the region, not all the fault of the Palestinians.
Marius25
(3,213 posts)However, I also disagree with the apartheid claim. There are no Israeli laws that qualify as apartheid. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens and thus cannot be under the same laws as Israeli citizens anymore than Canadians are treated the same as Americans. About 20-30% of Israeli citizens are Arab Palestinians and while they deal with their own issues (much like blacks or Hispanics deal with issues in the US), they're still afforded the same basic rights as all Israeli citizens.
That means by definition, Israel cannot be an Apartheid state. South Africa was an Apartheid state because the majority black population was bound by different laws than the minority white population within the country.
As for Netanyahu, there are daily protests the largest of which the country has ever seen over his abuses of power. I don't know if that will result in him being kicked out, but millions of Israelis hate him.
The main reason Israel is even a right-wing country these days is because of the Second Intifada. Israel was created as a left-wing socialist country and all Prime Ministers until 1977 came from the Socialist parties.
The Second Intifada really destroyed the left-wing in Israel. Over the span of 2 years, Palestinian terrorists were blowing up civilian buses, restaurants, homes, schools, etc. nearly every day killing thousands of innocent people. This was largely blamed on the left-wing parties, because they didn't take threats of Palestinian terrorism seriously enough and tried to appease Palestinian groups. After 2 years of constant terrorism, the Israeli population took defense and security way more seriously and the right-wing parties emphasized that in their party platforms, vowing to never allow that kind of widespread terrorism to happen again. It led to the permanent rise of Netanyahu and others like him, while the left-wing parties barely get any seats.
When you live your entire life dealing with threats of terrorism, you're not going to side with political parties who want to negotiate with those terrorists.
Furthermore, the ultra-religious Jews of Israel have way more children than secular and liberal Jews, which is leading to them having more power in government. And since the religious groups will never negotiate with Palestinians, and don't want Israel to be secular, it gives lots of power to the far-right.
Short of the majority of the country getting fed up with the far-rights dictatorship efforts or millions of American Jews moving to Israel, Israel will likely always be far-right.
No, not all the problems are directly the result of Palestinians, but many of them are and that's how it started. The primary power in the Palestinian territories right now is Hamas - a recognized terrorist group who is similar to ISIS. As long as Palestinians are led by a terrorist group, Israel will never play nice.
Keep this in mind. Hamas' stated goal in their political charter is to exterminate all Jews. Israel may not play nice a lot of the time, but Israel doesn't not have any official doctrine on exterminating all Arabs, and if they had that goal, they would have done it by now.
brush
(61,033 posts)I don't know, sounds like apartheid to me.
Talks and concessions needed from both sides.
Marius25
(3,213 posts)And that's not what apartheid means.
brush
(61,033 posts)the separation from farm lands?
Marius25
(3,213 posts)
chowder66
(11,727 posts)The Washington Democrat sought to clarify her comments on Sunday, writing in a statement that she apologizes to "those who I have hurt with my words."
"At a conference, I attempted to defuse a tense situation during a panel where fellow members of Congress were being protested. Words do matter and so it is important that I clarify my statement. I do not believe the idea of Israel as a nation is racist," the statement read.
"I do, however, believe that Netanyahu's extreme right-wing government has engaged in discriminatory and outright racist policies and that there are extreme racists driving that policy within the leadership of the current government," Jayapal added.
hlthe2b
(112,517 posts)chowder66
(11,727 posts)
mjvpi
(1,835 posts)What I see is an ultra modern, highly militarized society and poor, segregated tribe of people who keep loosing their land. The "history” of the region seems to be what both sides use to justify killing each other, so on that issue, both sides need to suck it up. The US should only actively support elements on both sides that want a lasting peace. The settlement issue that the current political leaders in Israel actively support shows me that their current government is not serious about peace and I question their motivations as well. This is a political observation only.
Polybius
(21,329 posts)
nycbos
(6,674 posts)... she the phone talking to Israeli tech companies to try to persuade them to relocate to Seattle. There have been protests in the streets for more than 20 weeks now due to the fact that the government wants to end the independence of the Judiciary. Many of them have threatened to move abroad if the law passes. If they do so, then, she can brag in a constituent letter about how she brought all the new jobs to her district.
cstanleytech
(28,145 posts)Tetrachloride
(9,303 posts)Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 18, 2023, 06:41 PM - Edit history (1)
Two million Israeli citizens of Palestinian dissent with equal rights afforded to them by their citizenship can vouch for that.
By definition, accusing a state of racism towards an ethnic group when there is demonstrable and incontrovertible evidence of that state exercising a policy of integration towards the same ethnic group, is patently ridiculous.
And I am not buying Jayapal's apology either. She owes her apology to the English language itself, when, in her own words, she has been "fighting to make it clear that Israel is a racist state", despite objections from every single English dictionary in the world, not to the people she may have hurt by her offensive manipulation of the language.
Words matter.
cstanleytech
(28,145 posts)Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)According to her, she's been "fighting to make it clear that Israel is a racist state". She certainly was very deliberate about it, and she is not presenting it as an opinion.
cstanleytech
(28,145 posts)Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)Which makes it not a lie.
Thank you for the opportunity to demonstrate what I mean.
Uncle Joe
(64,010 posts)it's as if *rump succeeded here in the U.S.
Of course Israel doesn't even have a Constitution therefore the state would literally be the government.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-politics-netanyahu-judicial-overhaul-d04bf5585f08879d35c43a33ebdf7be3
Furthermore Jayapal didn't apologize, despite the corporate media's lies, she clarified
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)This is power. What Netanyahu wants is to limit the judiciary, not eliminate it, and even if he succeeds, the judiciary will remain consequential, and the people power will persist. There is no scenario at the present for the government to literally become the state, which is what you seem to be saying. That's quite a stretch. The situation in Israel is not at all as if Trump succeeded in the US.
Besides, Jayapal, by her own admission, has been "fighting to make it clear that Israel is a racist state" long before the the current crisis you are referring to. Her statement, unlike yours, has no connection to the the judiciary in Israel and it consciously dismisses Israel's democratic institutions, diversity, and relative tolerance towards all minorities, including the country's two million Palestinian citizens. It is an absolutist and unconditional statement which shows no regard for accurately reflecting established meanings or facts.
And she did, sincerely or not, apologize:
https://jayapal.house.gov/2023/07/16/jayapal-statement-on-israel-comments/
Uncle Joe
(64,010 posts)(snip)
The legislation is one of several bills proposed by Netanyahu’s ultranationalist and ultra-Orthodox allies. The plan has provoked months of sustained protests by opponents who say it is pushing the country toward authoritarian rule. Mass protests were expected later Tuesday in response to the vote.
(snip)
The Netanyahu government, which took office in December, is the most hardline ultranationalist and ultra-Orthodox in Israel’s 75-year history. His allies proposed the sweeping changes to the judiciary after the country held its fifth elections in under four years, all of them seen as a referendum on Netanyahu’s fitness to serve as prime minister while on trial for corruption.
Critics of the plan say it will upset the country’s fragile system of checks and balances and concentrate power in the hands of Netanyahu and his allies. They also say Netanyahu has a conflict of interest because he is on trial for charges of fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes, all of which he has denied.
A wide swath of Israeli society, including reserve military officers, business leaders, LGBTQ+ and other minority groups have joined the protests.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-politics-netanyahu-judicial-overhaul-d04bf5585f08879d35c43a33ebdf7be3
When they eliminate those judicial oversight powers, due to the government's corruption, they're already there and they only have two more readings to go.
There are too many common denominators with *rump to be viewed any other way, just another authoritarian regime trying to hold on to power regardless of the consequences to the people whether they be Israelis or Palestinians.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 18, 2023, 09:29 PM - Edit history (1)
Israel is much more diverse politically and culturally than US is. It has to do with immigration coming to Israel from all over the world and the unicameral parliamentary system of government. True, Netanyahu's is the most right wing radical governent in Israel's history, but this is in comparison with the unabashedly socialist governments of the past. Israel has over 120 political parties, with only top 15 or so of them eligible to be represented in the Knesset. Bibi's Likud only gets 32 of the Knesset 120 seats. Bibi's right-wing coalition controls only 64 of the 120 seats.Listening to the American punditry on Israeli politics is like the deaf being lead by the blind. The problem with Bibi is that he has major financial and logistical support from the world's right wing, and Israel's left gets nothing but contempt from the world's left (see the ever-popular "Israel is a racist state" bullshit). This is what keeps Bibi in power.
And no, Netanyahu is NOT trying to eliminate the judiciary branch. See my previous post on that.
Having said all that, none of it is relevant to Pramila's insulting comment, and it is her comment, not Bibi's power play, we are talking about. To that effect, your propositions that the citizens of Israel have no power and that Israel's judiciary is at risk of being eliminated are both false. So is your conclusion (or, rather, an attempted excuse for what Pramila stated) that Bibi IS Israel's government, and therefore Pramila is right to call Israel a racist state. No, she is wrong.
Uncle Joe
(64,010 posts)Israel is ranked at 87 with 37.6% diversity, the U.S. ranked at 68 with 52.7% diversity.
https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/most-racially-diverse-countries/#:~:text=The%20ten%20most%20diverse%20countries,a%20racial%20diversity%20of%2088.9%25.
I'm sorry I can't get upset over a poor choice of words by Pramilla hyped big time by the corporate media while they all but ignore Israel 's policies of apartheid on the Palestinians.
I wonder, have we heard anything new about the murdered Washington Post Reporter who by coincidence happened to be Palestinian or is that just being swept under the rug?
It looks like to me like that's exactly what Netanyahu is doing. Unicameral and no constitution so why not neuter the Supreme Court as well?
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)Attempting to brand Israel a racist or an apartheid state is not an error in judgement. It is an intentional and persistent manipulation of narrative that is designed to generally denigrate the state of Israel with deliberately ill-fitted allusions that do not legitimately apply to Israel. It is not even an attempt to address any causes of the Israel/Palestine conflict or contribute to its resolution . It is one-sided propaganda designed to obfuscate, not clarify anything, pure and simple.
And trying to change the subject to avoid addressing Jayapal's comment is not helpful either. None of it prove or disprove what Jayapal said on the record and later, however disingenuously, apologized for.
Curiously , the link you provided underscores how easy it is to misappropriate the term race in reference to, in this case, Israel's diversity. You are citing a source that measures racial diversity in response to my comment about Israel's political and cultural diversity. Your source is irrelevant to the subject I raised. This is just as inappropriate as calling Israel an apartheid state when addressing issues that have nothing to do with one racial group oppressing any other racial group.
And don't tell me you misspoke.
Uncle Joe
(64,010 posts)Having said that, yes, Israel is an apartheid state, that is intentional, I agree.
I didn't change the subject, I already stated it was a poor choice of words.
However her argument regarding Israel's government under Netanyahu is not without merit. The murder and coverup of a Palestinian/American journalist for the Washington Post is just prima facie evidence to support Rashida's point.
The attacks against and continual loss of Palestinian homes, the massive ghetto that Israel blockades the Palestinian people in of Gaza, what do you call that if it's not apartheid?
What would be a better term?
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)to be a poor choice of words. It has been repeated, word for word, for a number of years, by the far left in the US and Europe, and, curiously enough by the far right in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, aming other countries that are interested in keeping Israel weak and unstable. Same narrative, same intention, same disregard for meaning. Sounds like a very deliberate poor choice of words.
You did change the subject, twice, and I an quoting you here: "I wonder, have we heard anything new about the murdered Washington Post Reporter who by coincidence happened to be Palestinian or is that just being swept under the rug?
It looks like to me like that's exactly what Netanyahu is doing. Unicameral and no constitution so why not neuter the Supreme Court as well?"
Remember, the subject was Jayapal's choice of words, not the fate of the murdered Washington Post reporter (how does that make Israel a racist state, no matter whether it is Pramila or Rashida making this point, whether poorly or intentionally worded?), or Netanyahu's power move against Israel's Supreme Court (how does THAT make Israel a racist state? Remember, the "Israel is a racist state" bullshit precedes Bibi's move on the Supreme Court by years if not decades).
You should really look at the International Court's definition of apartheid before you attempt to use the term in describing Israel. And you should really look at the Fourth Geneva Convention to find out what constitutes a crime on the occupied territories, who is responsible for it, and who is not. And you should really look at the history of the Arab League to understand how the Palestinians lost their state that never was and to whom, how and why terrorism has become so prevalent among the Palestinians and who are the originators of the "racist state", "genocide" and "apartheid" bullshit. And finally, you should look at Israel's Palestinian citizens, their rights protected by the State, and their sentiment towards their Israeli citizenship, to see how none of the above insults are applicable to Israel's treatment of Palestinians as a race, an ethnicity, a religion or a culture.
Uncle Joe
(64,010 posts)to use "nation" as descriptive of a government, it's done all the time, even against us.
I believe it's much ado about nothing but again for the third time, it was a poor choice of words.
I think all this does is take attention away from what's being done to the Palestinians and Israelis for that matter by Netanyahu's extremist right wing government of which you have no answer.
If an American journalist (or any journalist) can be murdered by a supposed ally and the investigation covered up, I'm highly suspect of that government.
Apartheid
the action or state of setting someone or something apart from others.
"a model that perpetuates the segregation of older people"
the enforced separation of different racial groups in a country, community, or establishment.
"an official policy of racial segregation"
So if this isn't apartheid, what is it?
Israel expels Sub Labans from their home in Jerusalem’s Old City
Ramallah, occupied West Bank – Israeli forces and settlers have expelled a Palestinian family from their home in the occupied Old City of Jerusalem based on an Israeli court order.
The order said the family, who have lived in their home for 70 years, should be removed so settlers could take over.
(snip)
Dozens of Israeli left-wing activists protested in front of the family’s home until late morning on Tuesday.
Palestinian civil society and rights groups released a statement late last month blasting Israel’s efforts to displace the family, which they said is “forcible transfer, which constitutes both a war crime and a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute”.
(snip)
When Israel occupied the eastern part of Jerusalem in 1967, the state assumed control over the property before it was transferred to a private Jewish settler organisation, Galetzia Trust, which reportedly has ties to the infamous Ateret Cohanim group.
(snip)
“The case was decided against the family by a magistrate who was herself a settler,” a 2016 report by then-UN Special Rapporteur Makarim Wibisono read.
(snip)
“Uprooting Palestinians, whether through means of evictions, home demolitions or other discriminatory policies and practices employed by Israel to forcibly transfer Palestinians from East Jerusalem and Area C of the West Bank is a flagrant violation of Israel’s obligations under international law,” the statement added.
(snip)
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/11/israel-expels-sub-labans-from-their-home-in-jerusalems-old-city
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)While certainly poor, Pramila's choice of words was calculated, deliberate and consistent with a larger narrative whose language is by purpose and design intended to elicit a knee-jerk reaction of contempt towards the State of Israel, not to be factually accurate. It was poor because it was distasteful, not because it was unintentional. Her choice of words is equally inapplicable to the State of Israel as it is to its government. Her words alone may not be of any consequence, but they parrot an all-too-familiar patently false yet vigorously promoted anti-Israel narrative, and THAT is consequential.
Then you quote the definition of apartheid without citing its source. Well, I did some homework, and it turns out your source is Quizlet, an online learning tool, not a legal reference resource (https://quizlet.com/160461612/unit-3-the-civil-rights-movement-flash-cards/). Ok, we have a flashcard, but what is the legal definition of apartheid, the only one of any consequence? I tried to steer you to it, but you ignored my attempt. Well, I will persist. Here is the link to the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, which includes the legal definition of apartheid, among other things: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/rome-statute-international-criminal-court.
And here is the definition:
2(h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime
This gives you a complete answer to your attempted rhetorical question of "So if this isn't apartheid, what is it?" As you can see, "institutionalized regime of systematic oppression", "domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups" and "intention of maintaining that regime" are all necessary ingredients of apartheid. If one of them is missing, it ain't apartheid. So if you don't find at least two racial groups involved, and neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are racial groups, you are out of arguments right there, and no deflection will change that. This alone should compel you to reconsider the way you should use or not use "apartheid" in a sentence. So should AOC, Tlaib, Jayapal, Omar, and a whole other bunch of activists who call themselves "progressive".
Lastly, the excerpt from Al Jazeera itself points you to the same source for answers that show how wrong their report is. But again, deportation as it is defined by the Rome Statutes referred to in the article does not apply to the case they are reporting about. Al Jazeera failed to report that the case has to do with eviction, not deportation. It stems from the israeli Supreme Court decision that is based on the record of legal transfers of the title to the property dating back to 1949, when the Jewish legal holders of the title were forcibly deported from their Jerusalem home in violation to the Rome Statutes, and this unbroken record of title transfers doesn't include the Sub Laban family. That's right, they have been squatters on the property that never belonged to them for 70 years, and now, after many years of delays, the property is being returned to its rightful owners. It is not a crime, let alone an international crime, but mitigation of a crime previously perpetrated on a Jewish family. So much for the "deportation" outrage.
Believe it or not, evicting squatters is not included in the legal definition of apartheid or international war crimes either.
Uncle Joe
(64,010 posts)it's nothing but conjecture on your part and the link on your post is no good to boot.
"Sorry they can't find your page"
Try this one
ISRAEL’S APARTHEID AGAINST PALESTINIANS
A LOOK INTO DECADES OF OPPRESSION AND DOMINATION
In May 2021, Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah, a neighbourhood in occupied East Jerusalem, began protesting against Israel’s plan to forcibly evict them from their homes to make way for Jewish settlers. Many of the families are refugees, who settled in Sheikh Jarrah after being forcibly displaced around the time of Israel’s establishment as a state in 1948. Since Israel occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank in 1967, Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah have been continuously targeted by Israeli authorities, who use discriminatory laws to systematically dispossess Palestinians of their land and homes for the benefit of Jewish Israelis.
In response to the demonstrations in Sheikh Jarrah, thousands of Palestinians across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) held their own protests in support of the families, and against their shared experience of fragmentation, dispossession, and segregation. These were met with excessive and deadly force by Israeli authorities with thousands injured, arrested and detained.
The events of May 2021 were emblematic of the oppression which Palestinians have faced every day, for decades. The discrimination, the dispossession, the repression of dissent, the killings and injuries – all are part of a system which is designed to privilege Jewish Israelis at the expense of Palestinians.
This is apartheid.
Amnesty International’s new investigation shows that Israel imposes a system of oppression and domination against Palestinians across all areas under its control: in Israel and the OPT, and against Palestinian refugees, in order to benefit Jewish Israelis. This amounts to apartheid as prohibited in international law.
Laws, policies and practices which are intended to maintain a cruel system of control over Palestinians, have left them fragmented geographically and politically, frequently impoverished, and in a constant state of fear and insecurity.
(snip)
WHAT IS APARTHEID?
Apartheid is a violation of public international law, a grave violation of internationally protected human rights, and a crime against humanity under international criminal law.
The term “apartheid” was originally used to refer to a political system in South Africa which explicitly enforced racial segregation, and the domination and oppression of one racial group by another. It has since been adopted by the international community to condemn and criminalize such systems and practices wherever they occur in the world.
The crime against humanity of apartheid under the Apartheid Convention, the Rome Statute and customary international law is committed when any inhuman or inhumane act (essentially a serious human rights violation) is perpetrated in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, with the intention to maintain that system.
Apartheid can best be understood as a system of prolonged and cruel discriminatory treatment by one racial group of members of another with the intention to control the second racial group.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)It follows a very well established and well documented pattern of words that she is parroting, not a conjecture on my part. I illustrated this concisely in my previous post.
The link to the Rome Convention is accurate, except for the period at the end of the URL that I shouldn't have put there to signify the end of my sentence. Try this one:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/rome-statute-international-criminal-court
Amnesty is an advocacy group, not a legal authority. They advocate in favor of whoever they wish and against whoever they wish. Their definition of anything has no legal standing.
Uncle Joe
(64,010 posts)That kind of language has been used countless time to describe other nations and governments, including us.
Again, this is just a diversion to take attention away from how the Palestinians are being treated by the most powerful nation in the region.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)the government. And in either case, she is still parroting, word for word, the established pattern of misappropriating labels for propaganda purpose.
Her words are a diversion, but the outrage they caused is not. If you want to claim a diversion, give full credit for it to Pramila.
And let me challenge you to cite examples of political leaders in any country, anywhere in the world, claiming for purposes other than blatant propaganda that any state other than Israel is racist, whatever the context of their claim may be.
On edit: (Well, this is a trick challenge. Because any claim of Israel being a racist state is blatant propaganda as well, and it doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of a legal definition of "racist" )
Uncle Joe
(64,010 posts)Opinion | Will Netanyahu Be the Prime Minister Who Legalized Racism in Israel?
Netanyahu's agreements with his far-right allies mean the rise of a new Israel of state-sanctioned racism, unbound by political decency. As a Jew I'm disoriented. As an Ethiopian, a woman and mother I am outraged. As a citizen, I am afraid
At twelve minutes to midnight on December 21, Benjamin Netanyahu announced he had formed a government. The next day, the Israeli public found out about one of the main coalition agreements between Netanyahu’s Likud and Itamar Ben-Gvir, chairman of the far-right Otzma Yehudit party.
It stipulates that racist incitement will no longer be grounds for disqualifying a candidate from sitting in the Knesset.
The law (with constitutional status) that this agreement seeks to overturn stipulates that candidates and parties cannot participate in elections "should there be explicitly or implicitly in the goals or actions of the [party], or the actions of the person, including his expressions… incitement to racism.”
It recognizes the simple fact that lawmakers, as elected representatives of the nation, are supposed to be held to a higher standard than the public. This Basic Law makes it an obvious, unquestionable fact that the doors of parliament should be firmly closed to any and all people who have proven themselves to be racists.
(snip)
Roni (Fantanesh) Malkai is an activist and lawyer, chair of the 'Beam of Light' commission of the Ministry of Energy and the Israeli Electric Company and a frequent contributor to Israeli newspapers. She was formerly the former spokesperson for the Ministry of Social Affairs, a journalist and news anchor at Channel 10. Twitter: @Roni_Malkai
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-01-19/ty-article-opinion/.premium/will-netanyahu-be-the-prime-minister-who-legalized-racism-in-israel/00000185-c4d8-d279-a9b7-ccfdbe990000
Why would Netanyahu's government want to overturn this law?
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)It is labeled as such in large letters right at the top of the article.
It refers to a ruling coalition agreement without referring to the content of the agreement except to opine on what it stipulates. It then refers to the law that the agreement is supposedly intended to nullify, the law that is still on the books and has not been nullified.
And this is your evidence that "racist" is applicable to the Israeli government?
Weak. You don't even know what the reported agreement is all about. And neither do I.
Uncle Joe
(64,010 posts)Editorial | Netanyahu Must Fire Israel's Racist, Extremist Police Minister
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/2023-06-08/ty-article-opinion/netanyahu-must-fire-israels-racist-extremist-police-minister/00000188-9c4e-d3a7-adcf-bd4ff45b0000
Israel appoints far-right politician with a history of inciting racism as national security minister
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/26/1139266678/israel-appoints-far-right-politician-with-a-history-of-inciting-racism-as-nation
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)An editorial and an interview, both claiming racism of a single cabinet member but not documenting racist decisions by the government.
Agreed, Ben Gvir is a fucking bigot. So is Putin. So is Rahimi, the vice president of Iran. When was the last time you heard accusations of Russia or Iran being a racist country, or their respective governments being racist? Between the two of them, can you cite a single one?
Uncle Joe
(64,010 posts)I believe as one of our closest allies; Israel should be held to a higher standard.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)And why should Israel be singled out because of US support? How does that make international law inapplicable to Israel?
Israel is #6 on the list of US close allies, behind Australia, Canada, Britain, France, Ireland and Italy. Should any of these countries be held to a higher standard than Israel with respect to international law? Does this entitle North Korea to be blatantly racist and not be called out? What happens to equality under the law then?
This doesn't make sense at all.
Uncle Joe
(64,010 posts)All of our allies should be held to a higher standard than our opponents, just as you would any family member.
You're comparing Israel to Russia and Iran's autocrats, should we speak to them the same, government to government?
Is that what you're suggesting?
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)It is worse than unfounded - it is intentionally deceptive. All sources you cited fail to justify such accusation. International law doesn't justify such accusation. Comparing Israel's government to other governments in the region that completely escape elementary scrutiny, let alone being accused of racism, doesn't support such accusation.
I did not volunteer comparisons of Israel to autocratic governments, I compared an individual in the Israeli government to individuals in other governments to illustrate the fallacy of projecting bigotry of individuals onto entire governments. My position is not depended on such comparisons, it is based entirely on international law. I do not accept advocacy peddlers co-opting the role of the legal authorities. Persistent manipulations of narrative are no substitute for equal treatment under the law, which Israel is certainly not getting from its detractors.
I am suggesting nothing. I am stating the obvious: any allusions to Israel being a racist or an apartheid state fall apart under the scrutiny of international law. Continued use of these misappropriated terms for the sole purpose of denigrating Israel constitutes strategic and deliberate promotion of patently false anti-Israel sentiment. This effort obfuscates, inhibits and detracts from any critical discourse on the subject, which is detrimental to Israel, the Palestinians, and the integrity of the English language.
Uncle Joe
(64,010 posts)How Israel is labeled whether fairly or not is in the hands of how Netanyahu's government treats the Palestinians.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)of Jayapal's mouth. After all, the International Court couldn't keep her from ignoring their definitions, regardless of how they treat the Palestinians.
Uncle Joe
(64,010 posts)from recognizing Palestine as a state.
So far 138 out of 193 nations have.
As of 31 July 2019, 138 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states and two non-member states have recognized it (Israel is recognized by 165). Palestine also has been a non-member observer state of the UN General Assembly since the passing of United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 in November 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine#:~:text=As%20of%2031%20July%202019,67%2F19%20in%20November%202012.
It will be nice to be on the right side of history.
Oopsie Daisy
(6,670 posts)I'm sorry to say that the apology left much to be desired.
ripcord
(5,553 posts)Those attempts at genocide should never be forgotten.
Geechie
(1,039 posts)than this fucking argument will ever be resolved.
maxsolomon
(38,074 posts)Remember HRC and her speech to AIPAC. My elderly neighbors voted for Trump because of it. "Trump is better for Israel. What choice do we have?"
The RW Govt of Israel continues to strangle the West Bank, but the Settler strategy can't be criticized.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)The settler strategy can and is being consistently and severely criticized both inside and outside of Israel.
But it has nothing to do with racism. Pramila and you ought to know better.
maxsolomon
(38,074 posts)We use it too loosely and frequently.
What is word for the effect of the Settler policy on Palestinians in the West Bank, then? Cultural genocide? What is the word for the Gaza isolation? Collective punishment?
I don't see this Israeli Govt's policies being "consistently and severely criticized" by the US Govt, or many US politicians of any stripe. I see the Netanyahu Govt being given carte blanche, and that is the point.
Maybe Biden is going to tear Herzog a new one, but I doubt it.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)not Gaza). And it is not racism, not apartheid, not ethnic cleansing and not cultural genocide:
Recurring violations of international law as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Simple and accurate. Everything illegal that is happening on the west Bank is covered by this very important document. It also covers what is not considered a violation, just as the Rome Convention establishing the International Court establishes what is considered apartheid and genocide, among other crimes against humanity, and what is not.
This Convention also applies to Gaza. Accepting the consensus that Gaza is an occupied territory, the Fourth Convention places the responsibility for safety and protection of civilians in Gaza squarely on the administrative authority in charge of the occupied territory (Hamas). Self-defense and border protection are permitted by the occupying party (Israel) by the same Convention. Armed resistance by Hamas constitutes a violation of the Convention, nullifies all the protections afforded to peaceful occupied people and, as I mentioned, puts the responsibility to protect civilians on Hamas, not Israel. Israel may be in violation of certain maritime laws when it enforces sea blockade of goods coming to Gaza, but I am not familiar with these laws at all.
Different circumstances require different conclusions. Indiscriminate misapplication of certain terms leads to miscategorization and obfuscation of conditions these t4rms are supposed to signify. Assigning blame based on those misappropriated terms leads to resentment, and away from the solutions of the problems which those terms are supposed to describe.
Marius25
(3,213 posts)Israel is constantly singled out.
Beastly Boy
(13,283 posts)maxsolomon
(38,074 posts)Egypt isn't settling the West Bank. Israel's the only one doing that.
Was that whining?
Marius25
(3,213 posts)with different governments and cannot be viewed the same way.
Red Mountain
(2,233 posts)They're pretty closely related genetically.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/
The Grand Illuminist
(1,952 posts)Overall, Israel is not a racist state. But in its current form of government and the people who vote them in office, she may have a point.